| Literature DB >> 33105122 |
Camilo E Valderrama1, Nasim Ketabi2, Faezeh Marzbanrad3, Peter Rohloff4,5, Gari D Clifford2,6.
Abstract
There is limited evidence regarding the utility of fetal monitoring during pregnancy, particularly during labor and delivery. Developed countries rely on consensus 'best practices' of obstetrics and gynecology professional societies to guide their protocols and policies. Protocols are often driven by the desire to be as safe as possible and avoid litigation, regardless of the cost of downstream treatment. In high-resource settings, there may be a justification for this approach. In low-resource settings, in particular, interventions can be costly and lead to adverse outcomes in subsequent pregnancies. Therefore, it is essential to consider the evidence and cost of different fetal monitoring approaches, particularly in the context of treatment and care in low-to-middle income countries. This article reviews the standard methods used for fetal monitoring, with particular emphasis on fetal cardiac assessment, which is a reliable indicator of fetal well-being. An overview of fetal monitoring practices in low-to-middle income counties, including perinatal care access challenges, is also presented. Finally, an overview of how mobile technology may help reduce barriers to perinatal care access in low-resource settings is provided.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33105122 PMCID: PMC9216228 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6579/abc4c7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Physiol Meas ISSN: 0967-3334 Impact factor: 2.688
Figure 1.Illustration of the variation in FHR during gestation weeks 22–38. Note that the vertical axis has an arbitrary offset. FHR drops by about 15 bpm from week 25 to week 40 of gestation (Kapaya ). Adapted from Wakai (2004). Copyright © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comparison of fetal cardiac monitoring methods. The first column presents a four-point ordinal scale of medical equipment cost, from low ($) to extremely high ($ $ $ $). The horizontal line indicates when, during pregnancy, the technology can be used. The color of the line indicates the time required for training operators (green: low; blue: moderate; cyan: considerable; red: high; magenta: extreme). The thickness of the line indicates the relative evidence for the utility of each technology.
|
|
GA ≥ 24 weeks (Várady ).
GA ≥ 20 weeks (Peters ).
GA ≥ 20 weeks (Peters ).
GA ≥ 20 weeks (Grivell ).
GA ≥ 18 weeks (Sameni and Clifford 2010).
Intrapartum (GA ≥ 36 weeks) (Norén ).
GA ≥ 20 weeks (World Health Organization 2016b).
GA ≥ 20 weeks (Peters ).